"B.C. Policy Perspectives" is the web log of Mark Crawford. THE PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG IS NOT PARTISAN OR IDEOLOGICAL. INSTEAD, I TRY TO IDENTIFY POSITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES THAT ARE NEGLECTED, DROWNED OUT OR UNDERREPRESENTED ELSEWHERE. Some politicians and journalists have found it helpful and interesting, and I hope that you do, too!
This blog is linked to BOURQUE NEWSWATCH, THE TYEE, THE SIGHTLINE INSTITUTE, and The MARK NEWS. Check them out!!

Monday, May 25, 2015

“Pick your battles” is a wise adage for life,
especially in the intensely competitive and adversarial arena that is politics.
That is why we have a certain tolerance and even admiration for leaders who
display this wisdom in their campaign strategies.

But what if that campaign seems never-ending,and the battles avoided include major issues
of the day and time- worn avenues of democratic accountability? I am referring of course to the prime
minister’s recent decision to not attend the traditional debates put on by the
consortium of Canada’s major broadcasting networks.These debates have become known as “the”
debates and one the key focal points of the election campaign: in 2011 the first
English-language debate drew 10 million viewers.The only problem, from Mr. Harper’s
perspective, is that he can’t control them. And that is why he prefers to have
a Google/Globe and Mail debate on the economy in Calgary and a Munk debate on
national security in Toronto instead. Smaller, more fragmented audiences
looking at debates focusing on his preferred agenda, in his preferred context, suits
him better.

By pulling out of the traditional consortium
debates, the government has cleverly conflated two issues: one is that the idea
of a broadcasting consortium effectively monopolizing and determining the
debate format is no longer acceptable; the other is that it is acceptable for
the government to unilaterally change the rules 5 months before an election.
The government pretends that the former consideration legitimates the latter;
it does not. All it suggests is that we should supplement the broadcasters’
debate with others, and then agree after the election to establish a Debates
Commission to set the rules for the following election.

Perhaps the prime minister’s audacity wouldn’t seem
so bad if it weren’t part of an even larger pattern of audacity that has
characterized his entire tenure in power. We don’t have First Ministers’
conferences anymore, even though healthcare reform and battling climate change
are of immense concern to Canadians and require a very high level of
federal-provincial coordination. We don’t have wide open press conferences anymore
either. Instead, we now have personal
attack ads between elections, prorogations of parliament whenever a government
is in danger of losing a vote of confidence, and omnibus budget implementation
bills as the primary vehicle for unpopular measures that are neither budgetary
nor about mere implementation.All of this
has become simply routine.

If Mr. Harper is rewarded with another majority and becomes
the most successful Conservative PM of modern times, his behavior will become
the template for Conservatives, the unspoken political playbook for all
politicians, and the 'new normal' for all young and immigrant Canadians, and
even for a large number of older Canadians who don't bother to remember the
honour system that once was.Is this the
role model we want for politics in the future?

Friday, May 15, 2015

Canadians now spend $34 billion per year on pharmaceuticals.
That is almost a thousand dollars for every man, woman and child---
considerably more than most citizens of other OECD countries spend on
comparable or better drug plans. In New Zealand, for example, a national drug
formulary aggressively pursues the most cost effective drugs and negotiates the
best obtainable prices. Even countries
such as France, Italy and Spain spend less than Canadians do for the same
basket of drugs.According to a recent
study conducted by several experts on drug policy published in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal, Canadians could save $8 billion dollars per year
on prescription drugs(well over 20% of
our total costs) if we had a single–payer system of pharmacare.More people would be covered—thereby making
drug policy more consistent with the basic principle of universal medicare--
and administrative costs would be lower.Economies would be realized through three different mechanisms: the
benefits of bulk purchasing; the negotiation of lower prices; and the
substitution of generic drugs for more expensive brands.So why hasn’t it happened?

It almost did. In 2004, B.C. ‘s Liberal premier Gordon
Campbell, Alberta’s Conservative premier Ralph Klein, and Saskatchewan NDP
premier Lorne Calvert all agreed that the federal government was more able than
the provinces to finance a national pharmaceutical plan. All of the other
premiers readily agreed (with Quebec premier Jean Charest of course insisting
on the right of Quebec to opt out and run its own parallel plan). Unfortunately,the new Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin ,
had too much on his plate and too little time to deliver it. The death blow
came when Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was elected in 2006, and
began its policy of implementing targeted tax cuts rather than “expensive”
social programs. But what if the “expensive social program” actually saved
billions per year by lowering drug costs? Let’s just say that Stephen Harper
did not enter politics to save medicare, but rather something closer to the
opposite.

The Conservatives’ role in driving up drug prices was not
just due to this act of omission, but also to a considerable act of commission
that came a few years later with the negotiation of the Canada-European Trade Agreement
(CETA).Canada needs to encourage investment in research, development and
manufacturing, but that neither explains nor justifies our history of higher
prices.Remember when Brian Mulroney
firstangered seniors by improving
patent protection for drugs and making generic drugs more expensive, way back
in 1987? At that time, the pharmaceutical industry promised to spend 10% of
sales revenues on R&D in exchange for higher prices. What happened? Research
spending has been well below 10% since 2002. How can we be confident that drug companies
will serve consumers any better under CETA?

Subscribe To

Twitter Feed

Followers

RSS Feed

B.C. Policy Perspectives

Visitors to this Blog since February 11, 2016

The following text will not be seen after you upload your website,
please keep it in order to retain your counter functionality
Free TrackersHelp

On Knowing (1)

"The most perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little longer: as perhaps the most perfect philosophy of the moral or metaphysical kind serves only to discover larger portions of it." ---David Hume

On Knowing (2)

"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world."--- Arthur Schopenhauer

On Knowing (3)

"There is no a priori reason for thinking that the truth, once discovered, will necessarily prove interesting."---C.I. Lewis